Developmental State: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique

Year 2016, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 1 - 12, 27.12.2016

Ömer Mollaer

https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.265156

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This article aims to critically reassess the theoretical and
methodological premises of developmental state. It is argued that developmental
state as a theoretical framework is misleading in terms of grasping the nature
of the state by regarding it existing above the social relations, particularly
class conflicts, and separating it from the international context within which
it flourished. Moreover, in an
attempt to explain the inherent contradictions of the developmental state,
which have largely been obscured within the statist theoretical framework, I
argue that the concept of the developmental state mystifies the exploitative
nature of the capitalist state on the one hand, while overlooking the
contradictions intrinsic to capitalist development on the other.  

Keywords

Developmental state, class conflict, statism, methodological nationalism

References

• Gore, C. (1996) “Methodological Nationalism and the Misunderstanding of East Asian Industrialization”, European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 8, No: 1, p. 77–122
• Johnson, C. (1982) MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975, Chicago: Stanford University Press.
• Kim, E. M. (1993) ‘Contradictions and Limits of a Developmental State: With Illustrations from the South Korean Case’, Social Problems, No: 40, 2: 228–49.
• Kim, E. M. (1999) ‘Crisis of the Developmental State in South Korea’, Asian Perspective, No: 23, p. 35–55.
• Öniş, Z. (1991) “The Logic of the Developmental State” Comparative Politics, Vol. 24, No:1, p. 109-26.
• Pradella, L. (2014) “New Developmentalism and the Origins of Methodological Nationalism”, Competition and Change, Vol.18, No: 2, p.180-93.
• Reinert, E. S. (2007) How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor, London: Constable.
• Song, H-Y (2011) “Theorising the Korean State beyond Institutionalism: Class Content and Form of ‘National’ Development”, New Political Economy, Vol.16, No: 3, p. 281-302.
• Song, H-Y (2013) “Marxist Critiques of the Developmental State and the Fetishism of National Development” Antipode, Vol. 45, No: 5, p. 1254-1276.
• Wade, R. (2000) ‘Wheels Within Wheels: Rethinking the Asian Crisis and the Asian Model’, Annual Reviews of Political Science, 2000, p. 85–115.
• Weiss, L. (2003) “Guiding Globalisation in East Asia: New Roles for Old Developmental States”, in L. Weiss (ed.), States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back in, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 245-70.
• Amsden, A. (1989) Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cammack, P. (2007) “Class Politics, Competitiveness and the Developmental State”, Papers in the Politics of Global Competitiveness, No.4, Manchester Metropolitan University.
• Chang, D-O (2009) Capitalist Development in Korea: Labour, Capital, and the Myth of the Developmental State, London: Routledge.
• Chang, H-J (2002) Kicking away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, London: Anthem Press.
• Chibber, V. (2005) “Revisiting the Developmental State: The Myth of the “National Bourgeoisie”, Leo Panitch and Colin Leys (eds) The Empire Reloaded (Socialist Register 2005), p.144-165.
• Evans, P. (1992) "The State as Problem and Solution: Predation, Embedded Autonomy and Adjustment", in S. Haggard and R. Kaufman (eds), The Politics of Economic Adjustment: International Constraints, Distributive Politics, and the State, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Evans, P. (1995) Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Fine, B. (2006) “The Developmental State and the Political Economy of development”, in K.S. Jomo and B. Fine (eds), The New Development Economics: After the Washington Consensus, London: Zed Books, p. 1-20.
• Fine, B. (2011) “Locating the Developmental State and Industrial and Social Policy after the Crisis”, The Least Developed Countries Report 2011: The Potential Role of South-South Cooperation for Inclusive and Sustainable Development, Background Paper No: 3, UNCTAD.